maddalop@cs.rpi.edu (Philip Maddaloni) (11/16/90)
I feel that there is a significant problem in the computer industry today in the form of software piracy. Piracy can be broken down into three classes based on the effect each class has on the industry. The first class consists of those who illegally copy software which they could not in the first place afford. The second consists of individuals and businesses who illegally copy software which they could not afford. The third consists of those who illegally copy and mass distribute software. The first class does not directly harm the computer industry since the amount of profit the software producer makes is not affected. The only effect it may have is to cause the pirater to recommend the software to others or to disocurage them from purchasing it. This will only cause good products to survive and bad ones to fail. This is a good result if anything. The third class is harmful, but it is more easily identifiable and punishable. Also this problem has parallels in the recording industry and is therefore not central to computers and is therefore less interesting in this context. This second form, though, is one which seems innocent and harmful enough, yet is very harmful to the computer industry and to the future of personal computers and computer products and their availability to the consumer. First, the lost profit that will result in the large number of people illegally copying software will result in a raising of the price of software and a shortage in the market for software since it becomes too risky to develop software that will not be purchased by many people. This has the effect of putting software out of reach for many people and cause more pirating and this chain reaction continues . Next, if a new computer comes along that is powerful and innovative but, of course, being new has little user support it will be almost impossible for the computer to survive since it will not be profitable to make software for it. This lack of software will cause the computer to become less popular and therefore fail in the market. This type of block on innovation is unacceptable. Some may say that this is good since it fosters standardization since a few large popular computers will take over the market as have IBM and Apple in the personal computer market. Although standardiztion is beneficial to the industry innovation must not be sacrificed in favor of it. Some solutions to this problem are possible. One may be to include advertisements in software packages and in the software itself to raise enough money so as to lower the price of the software significantly enough so that people not only can afford it but are willing to pay for it to get the manual as opposed to just the software. Once software is inexpensive enough many more people will buy it and therefore cause it to become even cheaper and proliferate the product if it is a good one.
lupienj@hpwadac.hp.com (John Lupien) (12/01/90)
In article <_&_^R9#@rpi.edu> maddalop@cs.rpi.edu (Philip Maddaloni) writes: [intro deleted] >The first class >consists of those who illegally copy software which they could not in the >first place afford. The second consists of individuals and businesses who >illegally copy software which they could not afford. The third consists of ^^^ (unintended?) >those who illegally copy and mass distribute software. > The first class does not directly harm the computer industry since the >amount of profit the software producer makes is not affected. The only effect >it may have is to cause the pirater to recommend the software to others or to >disocurage them from purchasing it. This will only cause good products to >survive and bad ones to fail. This is a good result if anything. I can't really argue about that, although these people may be morally in the "wrong" by violating copyright, they would not be able to buy the software that they are now able to give good references for. Of course, they may be more likely to try to make the software do things it was not designed for, and give it an undeserved bum rap when it fails... [third class dismissal deleted] > This second form, though, is one which seems innocent and harmful >enough, yet is very harmful to the computer industry and to the future of >personal computers and computer products and their availability to the >consumer. > First, the lost profit that will result in the large number of >people illegally copying software will result in a raising of the price of >software and a shortage in the market for software since it becomes too >risky to develop software that will not be purchased by many people. This has >the effect of putting software out of reach for many people and cause more >pirating and this chain reaction continues . This is really too bad. If only the software were free to begin with... > Next, if a new computer comes along that is powerful and innovative >but, of course, being new has little user support it will be almost >impossible for the computer to survive since it will not be profitable to >make software for it. This lack of software will cause the computer to >become less popular and therefore fail in the market. This type of >block on innovation is unacceptable. > Some may say that this is good since it fosters standardization since >a few large popular computers will take over the market as have IBM and Apple >in the personal computer market. Although standardiztion is beneficial to >the industry innovation must not be sacrificed in favor of it. Standardization (as exemplified by the FSF stuff (GNU)) of free code would not exhibit this particular problem (IHMO), since the sources are freely available, anyone who needs to will just compile up the utilities they need, and off they go... while the folks who "don't do software" would be welcome to pay me a porting fee to get it running on their new whizz-bang box. The problem there is that the whizz-bang 2000 may not have the architectural capability to support the software. This would tend to make the whizz-bang 2000 fail, even if the technilogical advances that it represents are actually a step forward. > Some solutions to this problem are possible. One may be to include >advertisements in software packages and in the software itself to raise >enough money so as to lower the price of the software significantly enough >so that people not only can afford it but are willing to pay for it to get >the manual as opposed to just the software. Once software is inexpensive >enough many more people will buy it and therefore cause it to become >even cheaper and proliferate the product if it is a good one. Please spare me the junk mail. I will not pay for you to give me advertisements. You may pay me at my standard rate to review your advertising if I so agree, but if I don't, don't call me, I won't call you. Including gratuitous advertisements has lead to the degredation of many previously prestigeous industry periodicals into advertising volumes. If you think that won't happen to software once you open the door, well I think you may be wrong. I will omit references to specific examples, I'm sure you can think of some (perhaps starting with a P). Make your software functional, reliable, and meet my processing needs, and I will buy it if the price is right. Screw around with creative financing and you may find that you waste so much time trying to cut deals with advertisers and the like that your software work isn't getting done, and your product isn't what it could have been. --- John R. Lupien lupienj@hpwarq.hp.com
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (12/03/90)
In article <1472@hpwala.wal.hp.com> lupienj@hpwadac.UUCP (John Lupien) writes: >This is really too bad. If only the software were free to begin with... > [...] >Standardization (as exemplified by the FSF stuff (GNU)) of free code >would not exhibit this particular problem (IHMO), since the sources >are freely available, anyone who needs to will just compile up the >utilities they need, and off they go... while the folks who "don't >do software" would be welcome to pay me a porting fee to get it >running on their new whizz-bang box. The problem there is that the >whizz-bang 2000 may not have the architectural capability to support >the software. This would tend to make the whizz-bang 2000 fail, even if >the technilogical advances that it represents are actually a step forward. You ignore the more likely scenario: the software isn't up to the full capabilities of the hardware. For example, the whizz-bang 2000 is the first computer on the market with a full virtual reality kernel. This of course isn't the software's fault, but very few people would be inclined to buy a whizz-bang 2000 if the software doesn't take advantage of the unique powers of hardware. So it would seem that free software with source code is great for the installed base, but it doesn't significantly affect the new products. No flame on FSF or John intended, and all coments are IMHO... :-) -- _____________ ___________________________________________________/ Chrome Cboy \______________ | "With the zeal of Amerigo Vespucci, who 'discovered' the Americas some years | | after Columbus landed here, Microsoft's CEO Bill Gates laid claim to the || 'new' territory of a totally graphical user environment, which he promised || in future versions of Windows." --MacWEEK, 11.20.90, covering Comdex/Fall |
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (12/04/90)
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: > You ignore the more likely scenario: the software isn't up to the full > capabilities of the hardware. For example, the whizz-bang 2000 is the > first computer on the market with a full virtual reality kernel. This of > course isn't the software's fault, but very few people would be inclined > to buy a whizz-bang 2000 if the software doesn't take advantage of the > unique powers of hardware. So it would seem that free software with source > code is great for the installed base, but it doesn't significantly affect > the new products. I disagree. There are a *lot* of people out there that program, and are willing to do a fair amount of programming on their own time. If a company releases a binary version of a commercial software package it will be available for only the machines that company has the time and resources to port it to. People that tend to buy the newest whizz-bang devices tend to be fairly technically inclined, though. If source code is available there will always be people out there with the new machine that will be willing to have a go at porting the old software and perhaps adding some new features to take advantage of the new hardware. One example would be the elvis editor (a vi clone). It was written for UNIX (or MINIX-ST, actually) by the author, but it has been ported to various UNIX systems and clones (BSD, SYSV, Coherent), Atari ST TOS, and MS-DOS, among others. MODEM7 (the venerable CP/M communications program) grew quite rapidly and had a lot of features added because the source code was freely available for it. Even though I didn't program under CP/M at the time I still used it and took advantage of that freedom. I think that distributing source code is the way to go. I see this binary-only trend as an abberation brought on by the standardization of the IBM PC between the fall of CP/M and the rise of UNIX in the microcomputer world. cjs | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS